Just another WordPress.com site

Category Archives: Mitt Romney

The importance of presidential debates are a common topic for debate. Many people claim that the debates have no bearing on who they vote for, so whether or not Romney and Obama could swing enough interest to their side through the debates to win is somewhat unknown. Many, however, tune in to see what the candidates have to say and do not hesitate to share their opinions afterwards.

Many raved and said that Mitt Romney won the first presidential debate, which was held on October 3, 2012. According to the Baltimore Sun, people had predicated that Romney needed to use the opportunity to convince people that he was the right option for America. He was well versed and had little trouble expressing himself during the debate, and the charm he conveyed won over a lot of viewers.

Romney was not met with total praise, however. Some felt that although he delivered his message with smooth words, what he said was not entirely truthful. Others also were upset because he said that although he loves big bird he would cut funding to PBS, a comment that has been blown up and shared through almost every news and social media outlet. It’s not surprising that Romney met some unfavorable responses because every candidate faces that, but the specific comments about his “lies” will likely be up for debate throughout the next month.

Obama had a less then stellar night, overall. He had trouble delivering his thoughts with the smooth presentation and his presences was hardly noteworthy. It was not like the usual Barack Obama that we are use to seeing and people did not hesitate to express their disappointment. Obama even made innuendos towards his poor performance. Some wonder if this is the beginning of his end.

How do you weigh in? Do you think Romney was untruthful, or are his critic simply attacking him? Did Obama just have a bad night, or has he already lost the people’s vote?

Thank you to my close friend Michelle Moodhe for sharing her
expierence at a rally for Republican Candidate Mitt Romney this past
Thursday:

On Thursday, Sept. 13 I had the amazing opportunity to attend a
political rally so close to Election Day. Many have projected this
election to be one of the most important because of the two very different stances from both candidates and during a time in which we
endure what is said to be one of the worst economic times in American
history since the Great Depression.
Mitt Romney stopped in Fairfax, Va. for a political rally in an area that could very well determine the election. With the surprising shift from red to blue, the 2008 Election was the first time in 40 years that Virginia became a “blue state,” voting Democrat in a presidential election.

At 9 a.m. on Thursday, nearly 2,000 people (according to FairfaxStationPatch.comch.com) gathered at Van Dyck Park in Fairfax
County. If any recall, this was also the location of a rally hosted by
2008’s Presidential Candidate John McCain and VP nominee Sarah Palin
as well.

Most everyone I noticed was decked out in red, white and blue attire.
I would estimate the age demographic, percentage wise, was 60% middle age 10% seniors and 30% Young Adults (16-30 years old). It was interesting because time and time again, I heard the familiar conversations which revolved around the economy, and the suffering of small businesses and the concern for the younger generation not able to find jobs. “Ralliers” were becoming instant friends.

Once the line started moving, we were welcomed by Virginia Congressional Candidate Chris Perkins. He shook the hands of many as they passed through registration, striking up a conversation with whoever had something to say.

Once inside, I saw the stage with a backdrop of an American flag. On either side were two signs promoting the “Romney Plan for the Middle Class.” The grounds began to fill fast. I was lucky enough to be about 15 feet away from the stage. I could tell that Romney would be focusing on women and the middle class because all signs said “Women for Romney” and the stage backdrop was made up mostly of women.

Around 11 a.m., a few speakers came out. The speakers were female
entrepreneurs talking about their American Dream. All the speakers endorsed Romney because of his business experience and spoke on behalf of his track record with success in the business world. After several speeches, the crowd waited, chanting “Mitt! Mitt! Mitt! Mitt!” and “USA! USA! USA!”

After a few minutes the campaign bus rolled up and the crowd went wild
as Romney came out. The crowd kept chanting “Mitt!” over and over. He
seemed to be overwhelmed by the high energy and waited about a minute
for the chanting to subside. He opened his speech talking about helping veterans getting a job when they come home, and the importance
of Northern Virginia in this upcoming election.
Romney proceeded to comment on the unrest at the U.S. embassy and the loss of four diplomats. It was during this comment that a heckler began shouting at the presidential nominee. Once the crowd caught wind of the disruptor everyone began chanting “USA! USA! USA!” The heckler was immediately escorted and Romney noted “I would offer a moment of silence but one gentlemen doesn’t want to be silent so we’re gonna keep on going.”

Romney continued his speech by touching on points on the military,
sequestration, strong economy and a critique on the President’s
address at the DNC. He claimed that Obama read no new ideas in his acceptance speech. Romney then proposed his five ideas that will get
America working again:
1. Have America energy-independent in eight years, which in turn would create millions of jobs.

2.“Make trade work for America,” opening up new markets, and
specifically calling out China for holding down their currency.

3. Make sure our schools are competitive on the world level.

4. Help small businesses by cutting back on the size of the federal
government, and get “America back on track to a balanced budget.”

Romney then proceeded with closing remarks, and made his way to the
crowd as many reached for a chance to shake his hand. He even kissed a
few babies, a perfect photo op. The crowd lingered for another 20 minutes or so and eventually filed out.
Overall, it was a great experience and very informational. Romney not
only delivered a speech with points and ideas but he thoroughly
explained how and why they would work. I myself am no expert on
economics or how jobs are created but one thing I think Romney does
very well is providing concrete reasoning behind these ideas.

He explained the market, how competition creates wage increase and the
economics behind currency manipulators. I left feeling more educated
and not just on a candidate’s opinion or platform but on actual
issues. I learned about the economy and jobs and the importance of small business. I think whether Democrat or Republican you couldn’t help but understand and agree with his logic.
It will be a tight election to say the least and I am very interested to see what direction Americans decide to take this country. No matter which party, I encourage everyone to vote because your opinion counts.

I just wanted to take a quick moment to thank Nicole for letting me
guest blog, it’s nice to have another writing outlet especially on a
topic I care dearly for. Thanks again Nicole!

*All opinions presented in this blog post are those of the author.

**I am always open to guest bloggers. Please email me atnmdales@gmail.com if you are interested.

Are children who are brought here illegally responsible for their actions? Or is the decision their parents made for them when they were young beyond their control? That has been a debate in the realm of immigration, and people tend to stand on one side of the issue.

Some feel that being here illegally is a black and white situation, and regardless of ones age, they are responsible for breaking the law. Others argue that many children are brought here without a say.

On Friday, Obama made a policy change to reflect those concerns. Under his new policy, people younger than 30 who entered the United States under the age of 16 can receive a two-year deferral from deportation. In order to qualify, these individuals have to pose no security or criminal threat and either have to be enrolled in school, a graduate or in the military. Those who qualify can also apply for work permits.

In his announcement, Obama said, “This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure.”

According to CNN, this policy change is expected to affect approximately 800,000 people. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told CNN, “I’ve been dealing with immigration enforcement for 20 years and the plain fact of the matter is that the law that we’re working under doesn’t match the economic needs of the country today and the law enforcement needs of the country today.”

Obama has received many complaints, including a tweet from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who called the decision “a classic Barack Obama move of choosing politics over leadership.”

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith released a statement that said, “Many illegal immigrants will falsely claim they came here as children and the federal government has no way to check whether their claims are true.” Other complaints the CNN article shared included that now more illegal immigrants will be taking jobs from Americans in an already tough economy.

Others are in praise of the policy change. Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois said the new policy “will give these young immigrants their chance to come out of the shadows and be part of the only country they’ve ever called home.” In a response to claims that this was to earn more votes, he rejected the idea and said that this move will cost Obama votes as well, making this a leadership decision not a political gain decision.

Clarissa Martinez del Casto, director of immigration and national campaigns for the National Council of La Raza, stated, “There is overwhelming support for the protection of these children, as there is in the rest of the country. I think this could have an energizing effect on Latino voters,” she added, according to an NPR story.

Presumed Republican Nominee Mitt Romney shared that he believes a more permanent conclusion needs to be found. “I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered and should be solved on a long-term basis so they know what their future would be in this country,” said Romney, according to an article on Examiner.

How do you weigh in? Do you think this was the right move, or do you oppose the new policy change?

It’s no secret that the young generation of voters rallied around Barack Obama and helped push him into the presidential spotlight in the 2008 election. Can he count on that vote to carry him through 2012?

The Harvard Institute of Politics conducted a survey of voters ages 18 to 29 to see who they preferred. Obama had 43% of the vote, whereas Romney has 26%. In December, Obama was at 37% and Romney was at 26%.

Obama may still have the young vote in his favor, but he should not consider the presidency in the bag. The LA Times writes about how although young voters favor him, they are also less likely to vote or volunteer for campaigns.

John Della Volpe, polling director for the Harvard Institute of Politics, gives some reasons why the interest in voting may be tapering off. “There were some factors that led people to increase engagement in ’02, ’06, ’08 — Katrina, Iraq, Afghanistan, not agreeing with Bush, 9/11, and obviously Obama and the use of new tools to mobilize,” explained Della Volpe. Della Volpe went on to say as students focus on getting an education, paying loans and staying afloat, political involvement is not at the forefront of concern anymore.

That is part of the push behind Obama’s current trip. Obama is visiting the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Iowa this week. His main topic? How to keep the costs of college loans down. It’s a popular topic among the young voters, and if Obama’s message is loud and convincing enough, he might motivate some more voters to participate.

The problem Obama is running into? Romney voiced that he agreed with Obama’s focus. This could mean Romney could snatch some voters Obama was counting on. Overall, however, Romney has been focused middle class families.

What do you think? Do Obama and Romney need to fight to gain the young vote? Or will it be a different crowd of people who carry the election this fall?

Does a woman who has never worked have authority to speak about the economic struggles women in America face? According to Democratic consultant Hilary Rosen, no. Rosen appeared on CNN earlier this week and argued that Ann Romney shouldn’t be discussing the hardships women face since she is married to a wealthy politician and has not been employed.

“His wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school and how do we — why we worry about their future,” Rosen said on Anderson cooper’s AC360. Rosen was immediately hit with criticism. Stay at home moms all across the nation stood up and fired back. Rosen attempted to clarify that she meant Romney should not rely on/ consider Ann to be his expert in regards to economic problems facing women.

Ann Romney stood up to fight for herself. “I know what it’s like to struggle. Maybe I haven’t struggled as much financially. I can tell you and promise you that I’ve had struggles in my life,” she said. She also created a Twitter account several hours after the AC360 segment and sent the tweet “I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work.”

Her son Josh sent a tweet out shortly afterwards that read “@AnnDRomney is one of the smartest, hardest working woman I know. Could have done anything with her life, chose to raise me,” and her son Matt tweeted videos of her speaking on a newscast.

Romney’s camp and Obama’s administration have been debating for sometime over the female unemployment rate. Immediately following the incident, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney worked to distance Obama from the comments of Rosen. Michelle Obama weighed in on Twitter, tweeting “Every mother works hard, and every woman deserves to be respected.” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina also sent out a tweet that said “I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize.”

The following day, Obama went on WCMH-TV in Ohio and stated, “It was the wrong thing to say. It’s not something that I subscribe to.” Obama went on to describe the efforts of Michelle and his own mother, and added “there’s no tougher job than being a mom.”

Romney supporters are coasting on the attention Rosen has received. “She did us a huge favor. “Our female base doesn’t want left-wing feminists telling them how to live their lives. She’s healing our base for us,” a senior official in the Romney campaign told NY Daily News.

According to this Christian Science Monitor article, Romney must secure approximately 40% of the female vote to have a hope of beating Obama. Ann Romney has been a help to pull in the vote of married women and conservative mothers. Will this comment by Rosen push more people away from Obama and toward Romney? Or did Obama’s team do a good job balancing the boat? Only time will tell.

How do you weigh in? Was Rosen right to say that due to her lack of employment history Ann Romney is not qualified to speak on the economic hardships of women? Or did Rosen step out of line and insult stay at home moms?

Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have been fighting for the same goal for the last several months: The spot of the GOP candidacy. They have been opponents this whole time and have not passed up opportunities to out-do each other in debates nor attack each other in advertisements. They do not act friendly on the surface and many are wondering why late last week reports came out that they had a secret meeting.

According to ABC news Mitt Romney confirmed that he and Gingrich had a secret meeting the day before the Louisiana Primary. Gingrich had already been scaling back his campaign and cut back 1/3 of his campaign staff, according to the Huffington Post.

Romney said the meeting was not important or of significance. He told Sean Hannity in a radio broadcast interview “We’re pretty much in regular communication between the different campaigns and I said hello to Newt. Nothing new, nothing exciting except we keep a friendly discourse open.”

Romney added “We do meet from time to time and I’m sure that the Speaker meets with Rick Santorum as well but we don’t go off and report the discussions. But they are friendly and we discuss the issues, we discuss the way forward but we don’t reveal our secret campaign strategies.”

Gingrich has yet to pull out of the race, although many feel as though the time is coming near. The likelihood of Newt gaining enough support to sustain as the spring progresses is slim, but he seems to continue to move forward. Some speculate that Romney and Gingrich may have been trying to come to some sort of agreement during their meeting.

Gingrich told the Washington Times, however, that he had not been offered a position with Romney’s administration in exchange for dropping out. “There is no agreement of any kind, and I plan to go all the way to Tampa,” Gingrich said in that article.

In regard to the changes within his campaign, he said he was “downsizing the campaign, not suspending it.” According to the Washington Times, some of the tactics he is using to downsize include ceasing the use of the campaign airplane or the two campaign buses.

Gingrich had announced that he will tone down his attacks against Romney in his advertisements, and his main priority is making sure President Barack Obama does not win a second term. He did reaffirm, however, that he is not done fighting for the spot as the GOP nominee. “Romney has to earn this. It’s not going to be given to him,” said Gingrich.

As of Wednesday, March 28 the delegate count was as follows: Romney-568, Santorum-273, Gingrich-135 and Paul-50. The magic number of delegates to shoot for is 1,144. Romney has a substantial advantage now, but there is still a chance for another to take the lead. Some feel, however, that for the sake of Romney and Santorum moving forward in getting the nomination, Gingrich needs to drop out and let his delegate votes go to a stronger candidate.

How do you weigh in? Is it time for Gingrich to drop out? Or is this a fight he needs to keep fighting?

Is Mitt Romney on a crusade to shut down Planned Parenthood? Not exactly, but he is looking to remove federal funding from the organization, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. Romney experienced somewhat of a “flub” when it appeared that he wanted to get rid of Planned Parenthood to help balance the federal budget. According to the Huffington Post, Democrats took this nugget and went running with it. Romney’s campaign staff fights that his comment was taken out of context, but it still could cost Romney some female supporters.

Huffington Post shares the original remark that set the motion in fire. At a Missouri television station interview, Romney said “”Is the program so critical that it is worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And on that basis, of course you get rid of ObamaCare, that’s the easy one. But there are others: Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that. The subsidy for Amtrak, I would eliminate that. The National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, both excellent programs, but we can’t afford to borrow money to pay for these things.”

This statement only adds to anger from when, in January, Romney said “I’m not concerned about the very poor” because he felt there was adequate support for them. You can see more of that remark in Politico’s article. Planned Parenthood is a service often accessed by those who find themselves struggling financially, and some Democrats are fighting hard that pulling funding from Planned Parenthood only goes to show how much Romney “doesn’t care about the poor”.

In a later interview, Romney said “Planned Parenthood is a private organization. What I want to get rid of is the federal funding of Planned Parenthood.” Top Romney Campaign Advisor Eric Fehrnstromr explained that Planned Parenthood has other sources of funding, and difficult decisions need to be made when it comes to balancing the budget, according to Aurora Sentinel. Romney’s campaign staff quickly worked to explain that Romney was not looking to eliminate women’s health care but was simply looking at where to shave some money from in the budget.

Many, however, are not seeing it as economic decision to help the budget. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said his statement was “an assault on the judgment of women”. An interesting twist to the situation also comes to light in the aftermath of his statement. In 2002, when Romney was a gubernatorial candidate, he signed a document that offered broad support for Planned Parenthood. In that document, he supported using state tax dollars to fund abortions through Medicaid and he supported easy access to the “morning after pill”.

Romney has declared that he had a shift from pro-choice to anti-abortion after becoming governor. He maintains that all his other social views have been the same, but it still causes concern for those who believe that Romney is too liberal of a candidate to have the GOP nomination. Romney spokeswomen Andrea Saul explained that “”Mitt Romney is firmly pro-life and he explained his reasons for becoming pro-life many years ago.”

How do you weigh in on this issue? Do you think Romney had a slip of the tongue? Do you think he actually wants to eliminate Planned Parenthood? Or do you think he is trying to cover his past to seem republican enough for the position?

Is the Latino population being excluded in the scope of concern of the GOP candidates? According to campaign officials with Barack Obama, they are.

According to the Census Bureau, in 2010 16.3 percent of the United States population was of Latino and Hispanic decent. That is a significant enough portion that the Latino vote could have a noticeable impact in the election season.

An article on Fox News, a recent poll indicated that Latino voters favored Obama to the republican candidates six to one. Some suspect the reason behind that might be related to various GOP candidate’s views on immigration, and on the Latino population.

This became a hot topic this week due to a new campaign advertisement that Mitt Romney released. In his ad, which can be viewed here, he showed the significance of Sonia Sotomayor being appointed to Supreme Court, among many other issues as examples of opponent Rick Santorum being too liberal and not ready to be the GOP candidate. It seems like another simple move to try to rip down a candidate, but as with most political moves in the campaign season, this one is receiving some backlash.

Santorum voted to confirm Sotomayor to the federal circuit court in 1998, according to this CNN article. Sotomayor is a liberal democrat, a viewpoint that opposes the republican stance that Romney takes. Some think the ad was simple created to show how Santorum supports a more liberal agenda, but others are taking it in a very different context. According to Angelo Falcon, president of the National Institute for the Latino Policy, “This unprovoked attack is another example of how Romney and the Republican Party are pushing the Latino vote to Obama … They forget that Judge Sotomayor is an icon for the Latino community. It’s like attacking Martin Luther King or George Washington, for blacks and whites.”

David Axelrod, who works on Obama’s campaign staff, was quoted saying, “This Republican debate should be very concerning to people in Hispanic communities across this country … because you know you’ve seen particularly Gov. Romney use the Latino community as foils to try and gain advantage over his candidates.” The CNN article points to Romney’s “bold” stance against immigration and his vocal appreciation of Arizona’s anti-immigration as two ways Romney pushes against the Latino population.

The Latino population, according to Axelrod, could also view the GOP’s views on several primary issues including education, job training and health care negatively. Democratic National Committee Senior Advisor for Hispanic Affairs, Juan Seulveda, targeted in on Romney, saying, “Mitt Romney has shown time and again that he is after the Tea Party vote, not the Latino vote, and with each attack he locks himself more to his extreme positions.”

Romney spokesperson Albert Martinez said that Sotomayor was picked due to her “liberal sympathy” and Santorum did not do his part to oppose her appointment. The CNN article pointed towards Newt Gingrich as well, bringing up the fact that he sent a tweet in 2009 calling Sotomayor a racist.

How do you weigh in on this issue? Is this a subtle racism from Romney masked in a campaign ad, or is it simply a GOP candidate attacking another candidate?

Rick Santorum has released a new ad, taking a direct hit at Mitt Romney. If you have not seen it yet, take a peak HERE.

Some argue that this advertisement takes a more juvenile approach in an effort to fire at Mitt Romney, who he claims has made childish slaps towards Santorum’s direction. If you notice, during the ad Santorum never gets hit by Romney’s mud, which would resemble Santorum’s real life attempt to come off as a clean and honest candidate.

Santorum does have something going for him in the advertisement. A common thought on people’s minds is that Romney is a little too liberal for the kind of candidate that the GOP wants. Santorum was able to take advantage of that criticism and frame it in an ad that could make Santorum look stronger.

One mistake Santorum made? He needs to be more careful about who he quotes. Appearing in text on the screen was a quote that said “Romney adviser admits Romneycare was blueprint for Obamacare”. That statement may be true, but the source listed was rushlimbaugh.com. Rush Limbaugh has his fair share of supporters, but there are many, many people who cannot stand Rush Limbaugh and his at times exaggerated statements about anything not severely conservative. Using that as one of the main sources in his ad is sure to sour some people from him.

Romney has been taking the lead in many polls over recent weeks but does that mean he has the candidate spot in the bag? Not exactly.

Some political analysts feel like Romney is too similar to Barack Obama-the very man many republicans are trying to knock down. As this article in the Washington Times describes, some feel that if Romney gets the nomination, republican voters will be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Washington Post columnist Conor Murphy pointed out that Romney has an economic plan that does not reflect one of a fiscal conservative. In the plan Romney laid out, the only cuts he made were from proposed increases, therefore not really counting as cuts at all. Romney has had wavering opinions on abortion rights and has voiced favor in regards to an individual health insurance mandate (Boston). Some feel he is too moderate to deserve the spot of the GOP.

Romney, on the other hand, has a different opinion of himself. At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) he labeled himself as “severely conservative”. A press release was also issued outlining his conservative views in terms of fiscal and social issues. At the CPAC, he said “I spent 25 years in business, starting at the bottom and going on to help create a great American success story. I … turned around a state crying out for leadership.”

One question many are asking is if Romney’s political views are truly evolving as he progress in the political campaign, or if they are part of an act so he can win the nomination. What do you think?